Steve Perry

Survival of Red Desert Pronghorn in the Face of Environmental and Anthropogenic Change

Adele K. Reinking1, Jeffrey L. Beck1, Tony W. Mong2, Mary J. Read3, and Kevin L. Monteith4

1Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071 2Wyoming Game and Fish Department, P.O. Box 116, Savery, WY 82332

3Bureau of Land Management, 1300 3rd Street, Rawlins, WY 82301 4Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of

Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071

Wyoming pronghorn

audubon.org

The Red Desert

wyofiles.com

The Red Desert

Bitter Creek herd

Baggs herd

Red Desert herd

Red Desert

Bitter Creek

CDC

Baggs

Baggs

The Red Desert

wyofiles.com

wyofiles.com

ncdc.noaa.gov

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) Climate Divisions for

State of Wyoming

The Red Desert

Red Desert

Bitter Creek

CDC

Baggs

Baggs

0.57/km2

0−5.8/km2

0.18/km2

0−5.1/km2 0.53/km2

0−13.7/km2

0.15/km2

0−8.2/km2

Mortality risk statistics

93

31

0102030405060708090

100110120130140

Num

ber

of e

vent

s

Modeling events

Died

Survived

Basic statistics: • 186 adult female pronghorn collared • 80% of deaths occurred in summer • 124 females included in summer modeling • GPS-collared individuals

• 2 hour fix rate • 2 years

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

11/1

0/20

13

12/1

0/20

13

1/10

/201

4

2/10

/201

4

3/10

/201

4

4/10

/201

4

5/10

/201

4

6/10

/201

4

7/10

/201

4

8/10

/201

4

9/10

/201

4

10/1

0/20

14

11/1

0/20

14

12/1

0/20

14

1/10

/201

5

2/10

/201

5

3/10

/201

5

4/10

/201

5

5/10

/201

5

6/10

/201

5

7/10

/201

5

8/10

/201

5

9/10

/201

5

10/1

0/20

15

11/1

0/20

15

12/1

0/20

15

1/10

/201

6

Surv

ival

Date

Daily Red Desert Pronghorn Survival Median Survival= 0.75

Survival

Lower CI

Upper CI

Mortality Risk Hypotheses

1) Habitat quality

2) Anthropogenic conditions

3) Intrinsic factors

roadsendnaturalist.com

Robbins & Robbins 1979

Hypothesis 1: Habitat quality

Northern Focus Photography

usgs.gov

Hypothesis 1: Habitat quality

goeddelphotography.com

Hypothesis 1: Habitat quality

Mautz 1978

Hypothesis 1: Habitat quality roadsendnaturalist.com

county10.com

Hypothesis 1: Habitat quality

Predicted Explanatory Covariates

Climate Sagebrush

commons.wikimedia.org

audubon.org

Joe Riis

Fat Reserves

Distance to water

Precipitation (time lag)

Temperature (time lag)

Proportion locations in sagebrush (seasonally)

Hypothesis 1: Habitat quality

eurekalert.org

Polfus et al. (2011)

Beckmann et al. (2012)

hcn.org

Sawyer et al. (2009)

Hypothesis 2: Anthropogenic conditions

Hypothesis 2: Anthropogenic conditions

Joe Riis

sciencedaily.com

earthisland.org

Predicted Explanatory Covariates

Roads Wells

Fat Reserves

Distance Density

Fences

Hypothesis 2: Anthropogenic conditions

Joe Riis

Joe Riis

onthewingphotography.com

Fat Reserves

Sacrosciatic Ligament

Palpation Sacrum

Caudal Vertebrae

Lumbar Vertebrae

Bicep Femoris

Longissimus Dorsi

Maximum Rump Fat

Ultrasonography

digital-images.net

Base of Tail

Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic factors

1

2

Estimated Age

Corrected Age 0.7855*Est. Age + 2.00093

Hypothesis 3: Intrinsic factors deerhuntingpros.com

Modeling approach

Modeling results

canada-hunts.ca

Modeling results

Mortality risk increases with: Proportion time spent in sagebrush during previous winter (p-value = 0.013) Total terrain ruggedness for the week (p-value < 0.001) Variation in snow depth during previous winter (p- value = 0.076)

billingsgazette.com ?

Discussion

Joe Riis

skyhidailynews.com

Proportion time spent in sagebrush

during previous winter

Future directions

Thank you to our funders

Dr. Jeff Beck Dr. Kevin Monteith & Tony Mong Kim Olson

Dr. Derek Scasta Dr. Shannon Albeke

Others:

Beck lab Many other WGFD folks Mary Read Frank Blomquist Many other BLM folks Jack Taylor Gary Sundberg Cory Reinking

Jacob Pelham Bryan Lamont Melanie LaCava Melinda Nelson Preston Foote McCall Calvert Zachary Robinson Missy Stallard

Teal Joseph

Dr. Holly Ernest

Many others to thank

Melanie LaCava

Adele Reinking areinkin@uwyo.edu

TITLE

Jansen Gunderson

The Red Desert

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Popu

latio

n Si

ze

Year

Baggs Herd Population Trend

Actual

Objective

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Popu

latio

n Si

ze

Year

Bitter Creek Herd Population Trend

Actual

Objective

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Popu

latio

n Si

ze

Year

Red Desert Herd Population Trend

Actual

Objective

Red Desert

Bitter Creek Baggs

CDC Baggs

Modeling approach

Model Name

K AICc Delta AICc

Model Likelihood

AICc Weight

Log Likelihood

Cumulative Weight

Study Area

1 256.68 0.00 1.00 0.40 -127.34 0.40

Year + Study Area

2 258.50 1.82 0.40 0.16 -127.25 0.55

Individual + Study Area

2 258.62 1.94 0.38 0.15 -127.31 0.70

Year 1 258.75 2.07 0.36 0.14 -128.37 0.85

Individual 1 259.37 2.69 0.26 0.10 -128.69 0.95

Individual + Year

2 260.75 4.07 0.13 0.05 -128.37 1.00

Random Effect Coefficient

Modeling approach

Non-Collinear Covariates ranking above the null model • Total terrain ruggedness for the week • Total distance to roads for the week • Total fence density at the 5km scale for the week • Total distance to wells for the week • Total distance to water for the week • Variation in snow depth during the previous winter • Sacrosciatic ligament depth • Proportion time spent in sagebrush during the

previous winter • Estimated Age

Modeling approach

pinterest.com Mary Ann Melton

spokesman.com

Modeling approach

canada-hunts.ca

Model K AICc Delta AICc

Model Likelihood

AICc Weight

Log Likelihood

Cumulative Weight

Habitat 4 178.52 0.00 1.00 5.05 -85.26 0.51

Habitat + Intrinsic

5 179.56 1.04 0.60 0.30 -84.77 0.81

Anthro. + Habitat

6 181.38 2.86 0.24 0.12 -84.68 0.93

ALL THREE 7 182.41 3.89 0.14 0.07 -84.19 1.00

Anthro. 3 233.21 54.69 <0.001 <0.001 -113.60 1.00

Anthro + Intrinsic

4 234.24 55.72 <0.001 <0.001 -113.12 1.00

Intrinsic 2 255.05 76.53 <0.001 <0.001 -125.52 1.00

NULL 1 256.68 78.16 <0.001 <0.001 -127.34 1.00

Hypothesis Testing

Covariate Coefficient Standard Error

Hazard ratio [exp

(coefficient)]

95% Lower Confidence

Limit

95% Upper Confidence

Limit

P-value

Proportion time sage previous winter

10.29 4.13 29,361.60 8.98 96,475,534

0.01

Variation in snow depth previous winter

0.18 0.10 1.20 0.98 1.46 0.08

Total terrain ruggedness for the week

-0.43 0.06 0.65 0.58 0.73 <0.001

Summary of final model

Schoenfeld Residuals

Hazard Plots Proportion time in sage the previous winter

Hazard Plots Variation in snow depth the previous winter

Hazard Plots Total terrain ruggedness for the week